Warming exaggerated every time
You will recall the article in the Wall Street Journal “No need to panic about global warming” (see here). Then came the response from the headbangers, swiftly dealt with by Pat Michaels here (“Wall Street Journal war of words continues”) and letter writers here (“WSJ: When you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail”).
Now the original writers have responded in detail:
[…] an important gauge of scientific expertise is the ability to make successful predictions. When predictions fail, we say the theory is “falsified” and we should look for the reasons for the failure. Shown in the nearby graph is the measured annual temperature of the earth since 1989, just before the first report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Also shown are the projections of the likely increase of temperature, as published in the Summaries of each of the four IPCC reports, the first in the year 1990 and the last in the year 2007.
These projections were based on IPCC computer models of how increased atmospheric CO2 should warm the earth. Some of the models predict higher or lower rates of warming, but the projections shown in the graph and their extensions into the distant future are the basis of most studies of environmental effects and mitigation policy options. Year-to-year fluctuations and discrepancies are unimportant; longer-term trends are significant.
From the graph it appears that the projections exaggerate, substantially, the response of the earth’s temperature to CO2 which increased by about 11% from 1989 through 2011. Furthermore, when one examines the historical temperature record throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, the data strongly suggest a much lower CO2 effect than almost all models calculate.
Read it here.
Australian Climate Madness 
If I look at only the data in the graph, I’m certain that a polynomial trend would indicate something like an inverse parabola, which would clearly show that the real ‘trend’ is diverging from that of those of the I(ntentionial) P(redictions) P(roposed) by C(heats).
What would happen if you only went to see a doctor 4 times in 20 years and he misdiagnosed you every time? Or if you visited a financial planner 4 times in 20 years and each time he delivered wrong income projections or you went to an accountant 4 times in 20 years and each time he got his sums wrong?
It’s time to stop the guess work and the exaggerated predictions and start doing some real science. Consistently wrong projections does not a scientific theory make!
The Wall Street Journal’s publication of this letter is strong evidence that the tide has not just turned in this debate, it is absolutely rushing out and the warmists are down right panicking. They must know that they are going to be left high and dry. However, like Ministers in the Rudd Goverenment, they dare not yet come out in public that they backed the wrong horse – “Black Carbon”. They would have done far better to have backed Black Caviar.
Today, in his hour of highest-ever media attention, Kevin Rudd, that crusader of the “greatest moral challenge of our time”, is backing down on the ill-founded and economy-destroying tax on human sources of carbon dioxide.
“It’s Time” to push home to all our friends and the wider Australian populace that action on global warming is a farce and a fraud.
That includes the nonsense (in the true sense of that word) of the Liberal Party’s Direct Action policy.
When will a courageous group of politicians with real clout “Come Out” and declare that the whole Global Warming debate has been a fraudulent waste of billions of dollars and billions of lines of media hype?
The IPCC’s models have been proven wrong, alarmists still have zero evidence … the writing is on the Wall.
Trenberth is the lunatic who claims that 20,000 years of rising sea levels is the “evidence” for man caused warming.
Until the money stops, alarmists will continue with their rubbish.